Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 5948

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6337
Yes. The suggested approach taken for Policy GI 1 is closely aligned to the priority habitats and themes set out in the emerging Cheshire and Warrington Local Nature Recovery Strategy (paragraph 25.6) This approach is welcomed and consolidates various Local Plan policies in one integrated policy. I recommend the following: Policy wording would be enhanced by recognition of priority habitats. Links to the LNRS and policy sections outlined are appropriate. The focus on agricultural land should recognise not only the loss of higher grade BMV farmland but also the value of this land for farmland species and migratory/wintering birds. The approach to increasing tree cover to 16% across all wards is in line with national targets which is appropriate. However, I recommend this should follow LNRS principles of ‘Right habitat in the right place for the right reason.’ to avoid unintended consequences for other priority habitats and species. The evidence base should reflect the Local Authorities position on strategic mitigation for recreational pressure to address Habitats Regulations requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 5951

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6340
Yes – new development should contribute to woodland and other priority habitat in the Plan Area which are of equal if not greater importance to nature recovery.

Comment

Representation ID: 5953

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6342
No comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6344
The Local Plan has a role in setting out a sound and ambitious policy framework to support nature recovery and guide delivery bodies such as Mersey Forest, Cheshire Wildlife Trust and other organisations activity working in this sector. The Plan can support such organisations by providing a balanced Green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity which is closely aligned to LNRS principles and priority habitats and themes. The policy should also make clear links to the wider ‘natural public goods and services’ which a healthy natural environment provides. Opportunities to work with organisations on publicly owned land guided by the LNRS and Local Habitat Map could be identified within the Plan including any potential BNG habitat banks or strategic habitat compensation sites required to offset biodiversity loss in borough. Additionally, I recommend the Local Plan/Policy G1 should reflect or link in some way to strategic cross boundary nature recovery opportunities as outlined in the LNRS. From a Liverpool City Region (LCR) perspective, this would include the Mersey Estuary, Dee Estuary, south Runcorn ancient woodlands and areas identified on the LCR Local Habitat Map. For information, the Liverpool City Region Ecological Network provides a current evidence base for strategic nature recovery opportunities adopted by Knowsley, Liverpool and Halton Council’s within their Local Plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 5956

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6345
Yes. Functionally linked land should be included given it has equivalent status in Habitats Regulations terms to national and internationally designated sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 5958

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6347
Generally agree with the policy, however, it is not clear where Anaerobic digestion for non-farm waste should be located. Given Simpler Recycling proposals and food waste collections from households starting in April 2026, this should be clearly stated.

Comment

Representation ID: 5959

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6348
It is acknowledged that there are cross boundary movements of waste which may affect the needs of the area and which cannot be predicted at this point. The policy approach is reasonable.

Comment

Representation ID: 5961

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6350
The reasoning behind not allocating a landfill is logical. It is widely accepted that landfill resource is becoming a regional, if not national issue, but equally that the waste hierarchy should be moving waste away from landfill. The Merseyside and Halton Joint Waste Local Plan 2013 was required to include a policy (WM15) which enabled landfill to be assessed should a planning application for landfill come forward. Consideration should be given to ensuring that a suitable criteria-based policy is available, for example should Kinderton Lodge come forward again.

Comment

Representation ID: 5962

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6351
The CWaC Needs Assessment 2023 has been reviewed and seems to demonstrate sufficient waste capacity to meet the needs of the area. Therefore, the policy approach set out in MW4 seems to be reasonable. There is a pressing need to ensure that carbon emissions are reduced as well as improving waste management, so this is accepted.

Comment

Representation ID: 5963

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

I&O_6352
Yes, it seems reasonable.